CPC Intended To Facilitate Justice & Not Penalise Individuals, Procedural Errors Can't Defeat A Rightful Relief: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani thus set aside an order passed by the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

“It is settled law that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are designated to facilitate justice as it is not a penal law to punish a person and normally courts do not refuse to grant just relief merely because there is some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infractions of the rules of procedure. The Scheme of the code in essence is completely adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to do the full justice to the case." 

Background of the Case:

The case traced its origin back to 1970 when the petitioner was a minor of 12 years. Allegedly, during that time, her mother and respondent 1 obtained a fraudulent decree from the Court of Munsiff Anantnag based on a compromise. This decree was designed to deprive the petitioner of her rightful share in her father's land property.

In 2001, after discovering the compromise decree, the petitioner challenged it in a suit before the Court of Munsiff Anantnag. The court decreed the suit in her favour in 2003, setting aside the earlier compromise judgment and decree. However, this decision was appealed by the respondents and eventually remanded back to the trial court, which in 2006, dismissed the petitioner's suit, on the premise that a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under the proviso appended to order 23 Rule 3 CPC for questioning the validity of the compromise in view of the order 43 Rule 1-A CPC.

Consequently, the petitioner appealed again in 2006, but this time, the Additional District Judge upheld the trial court's judgment while providing her an opportunity to take appropriate proceedings to set aside the compromise decree if available under law.

The petitioner then filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC before the trial court, seeking to set aside the compromise decree dated February 9, 1970, which was ultimately dismissed, leading to her instant petition before the High Court.

The petitioner contested the impugned order on the grounds that it had been passed without giving her an opportunity to present her witnesses, and notably, in her absence. Respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable, asserting that the trial court had rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 as such an application would lie only when a suit is pending before the Court.

Observations:

Justice Wani noted that the application filed by the petitioner before the trial court wherein the impugned order had been passed was styled to have been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, yet, the contents of the application coupled with the prayer made therein ex-facie suggested that the said application is filed under Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC.

Deliberating on the bar prescribed under O 23 R 3A of the code, the bench cited a precedent from the Supreme Court R. Janakiammal Vs. S. K. Kumarasamy which held that Rule 3-A of Order 23 of the CPC was introduced to give finality to litigation and prevent multiple suits challenging compromise decrees on the grounds of lawfulness.

However, Justice Wani also noted that the petitioner had spent a significant amount of time pursuing the wrong remedy, highlighting the procedural errors made along the way. It was observed that the trial court had not called upon the petitioner to produce essential documents, nor was she given a fair opportunity to present evidence in support of her case.

Spotlighting the scheme of the code in essence was complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to do full justice to the case, the bench emphasized that the CPC is intended to facilitate justice, not punish individuals. Procedural mistakes, negligence, or inadvertence should not cause impediments to grant relief and to facilitate justice, the court underscored.

In light of these observations, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to reconsider the petitioner's case in accordance with the law and the court's observations.

Case Title: Mst. Raja Vs.Mst. Fazi and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 244

Case No: OWP No. 16/2016

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment